Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Climate matters

wildlife, gardening, environment, Rural living, Pets and Vets
Sorcery
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1229
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:38 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 366 times

Re: Climate matters

#343297

Postby Sorcery » September 27th, 2020, 10:08 pm

UncleEbenezer wrote:
Sorcery wrote:I am not sure I understand the CO2 = heating argument. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is water vapour which is also a greenhouse gas, not as powerful as CO2 or methane, but there is a lot more of it and it cannot be eliminated while retaining seas. There seems to be a Gaia like symmetry about heat with water present. More warmth tends to more water vapour tends to more clouds tends to more rain. Clouds restrict the sun's light. Condensation and rain are exothermic processes releasing heat to space.

On the contrary, water vapour has by far the biggest single effect.

But it's weather, not climate. The key point is that there's a water cycle in long-term balance. Burning hydrocarbons generates water vapour, but there's somewhere for it to go (the oceans) where its volumes are utterly negligible and there's no long-term adverse effect.
]

Yes, water cycle is absolutely paramount. I don't think hydrocarbon burning matters that much either.

UncleEbenezer wrote:Methane is something of a red herring too. It has a natural cycle on something like a 20-year timescale, so intermediate between water vapour recycling in days and CO2's geological timescales of millions of years.


CO2 also affects the metabolism. Have you ever suffered in a stuffy room?[/quote]

It's perhaps not as interesting to look at the recycle time as it is to look at the level?
Yes, I make stuffy rooms by smoking, meetings tend to terminate earlier. Good, no?

Sorcery
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1229
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:38 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 366 times

Re: Climate matters

#343452

Postby Sorcery » September 28th, 2020, 1:07 pm

The idea of weather regulation of sea temperature happening on planet Earth is not mine, I borrowed it from Willis Eschenbach (the author of the 67 million year graph). He has written a very recent well argued article about tropical sea temperature regulation here : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/23/watts-available/

More CO2 might make thunderstorms occur more often which is a large part of the negative feedback. Apart from all the water locked up in the ice potentially melting, I see little threat from more CO2. Also don't think Antarctica melting or ice loss is going to happen while the continent is in it's current position.

From : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica
Nearly all of Antarctica is covered by a sheet of ice that is, on average, a mile thick or more (1.6 km). Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice and more than 70% of its fresh water. If all the land-ice covering Antarctica were to melt — around 30 million cubic kilometres (7.2 million cubic miles) of ice — the seas would rise by over 60 metres (200 feet).[20] This is, however, very unlikely within the next few centuries. The Antarctic is so cold that even with increases of a few degrees, temperatures would generally remain below the melting point of ice. Higher temperatures are expected to lead to more precipitation, which takes the form of snow. This would increase the amount of ice in Antarctica, offsetting approximately one third of the expected sea level rise from thermal expansion of the oceans.[21] During a recent[when?] decade, East Antarctica thickened at an average rate of about 1.8 centimetres (0.71 in) per year while West Antarctica showed an overall thinning of 0.9 centimetres (0.35 in) per year.[22] For the contribution of Antarctica to present and future sea level change, see sea level rise. Because ice flows, albeit slowly, the ice within the ice sheet is younger than the age of the sheet itself.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Climate matters

#343567

Postby XFool » September 28th, 2020, 7:44 pm

Sorcery wrote:I am not sure I understand the CO2 = heating argument. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is water vapour which is also a greenhouse gas, not as powerful as CO2 or methane, but there is a lot more of it and it cannot be eliminated while retaining seas.

Ooh no! AFAIK water vapour is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2!

But we evolved and live in a world that is the temperature it is because it is as it is - including all that water ice, liquid water and (greenhouse) water vapour in the atmosphere. That's nothing new.

Indeed, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere surely depends on the Earth's temperature, which itself depends on how much water there is in the atmosphere - as vapour (Up) and clouds (Down) - plus other greenhouse gasses. So, simple it isn't. But at least it has been that way for a very long while now, in human terms. What is surely new is all that extra CO2 in the atmosphere that was previously trapped under ground for millions of years. CO2 in the atmosphere is not itself new, but its concentration has been very rapidly, in geological terms, going up. That seems to be the problem. That's my understanding, anyway.

Sorcery
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1229
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:38 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 366 times

Re: Climate matters

#343582

Postby Sorcery » September 28th, 2020, 8:22 pm

XFool wrote:
Sorcery wrote:I am not sure I understand the CO2 = heating argument. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is water vapour which is also a greenhouse gas, not as powerful as CO2 or methane, but there is a lot more of it and it cannot be eliminated while retaining seas.

Ooh no! AFAIK water vapour is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2!

A water vapour molecule is less responsible for global warming than a Carbon Dioxide molecule which in turn is less responsible than a methane molecule. Collectively (all molecules present in the atmosphere) water vapour is more responsible for global warming.


XFool wrote:But we evolved and live in a world that is the temperature it is because it is as it is - including all that water ice, liquid water and (greenhouse) water vapour in the atmosphere. That's nothing new.

Indeed, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere surely depends on the Earth's temperature, which itself depends on how much water there is in the atmosphere - as vapour (Up) and clouds (Down) - plus other greenhouse gasses. So, simple it isn't. But at least it has been that way for a very long while now, in human terms. What is surely new is all that extra CO2 in the atmosphere that was previously trapped under ground for millions of years. CO2 in the atmosphere is not itself new, but its concentration has been very rapidly, in geological terms, going up. That seems to be the problem. That's my understanding, anyway.


I am not disagreeing, nor is Eschenbach. The Eschenbach paper that I linked to shows a maximum open sea/ocean surface temperature over 27 degrees C cannot be sustained without a thunderstorm or hurricane forming which brings the sea temperature right back down again. This safety valve if we can call it that means that we will not experience a runaway global warming scenario from additional CO2. It might be a more stormy world but it would be tolerable temperature wise. Just thought it was an interesting finding worthy of comment.

Edited to add, here is a hopefully self explanatory graph of rainfall versus sea temperature :
https://i2.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/w ... =681&ssl=1

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: Climate matters

#343591

Postby Gengulphus » September 28th, 2020, 8:38 pm

Sorcery wrote:... The Eschenbach paper that I linked to shows a maximum open sea/ocean surface temperature over 27 degrees C cannot be sustained without a thunderstorm or hurricane forming which brings the sea temperature right back down again. This safety valve if we can call it that means that we will not experience a runaway global warming scenario from additional CO2. It might be a more stormy world but it would be tolerable temperature wise. ...

But I at least want a world that is tolerable temperature-wise and tolerable weather-wise and tolerable sea-level-wise and tolerable in quite a few other ways. And I very much doubt that I'm alone in that desire... I.e. it's not enough to say that that 'safety valve' exists and will cause more thunderstorms and hurricanes - it also matters how many more storms and hurricanes it will cause, and how severe they will be.

Gengulphus

Sorcery
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1229
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:38 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 366 times

Re: Climate matters

#343694

Postby Sorcery » September 29th, 2020, 12:40 pm

Gengulphus wrote:
Sorcery wrote:... The Eschenbach paper that I linked to shows a maximum open sea/ocean surface temperature over 27 degrees C cannot be sustained without a thunderstorm or hurricane forming which brings the sea temperature right back down again. This safety valve if we can call it that means that we will not experience a runaway global warming scenario from additional CO2. It might be a more stormy world but it would be tolerable temperature wise. ...

But I at least want a world that is tolerable temperature-wise and tolerable weather-wise and tolerable sea-level-wise and tolerable in quite a few other ways. And I very much doubt that I'm alone in that desire... I.e. it's not enough to say that that 'safety valve' exists and will cause more thunderstorms and hurricanes - it also matters how many more storms and hurricanes it will cause, and how severe they will be.

Gengulphus


I appreciate the human desire for stability. It's not what we have though and for the foreseeable future we can't correct earths orbit or stop tectonic plate movement. Given we are currently in an inter glacial and still in an icehouse phase the likelihood of us entering another glacial period must be high with devastating consequences for life including humans. The first graph in here gives some perspective https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey ... uses-them/

1950's CO2 levels and temperature are abnormally low compared to the last 67 million years. The longest stable period on Eschenbach's graph the turquoise Coolhouse line in here https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/w ... C692&ssl=1 lasted for 20 million years with temperatures 8 degrees C warmer than 1950.
A bit more CO2 might prevent a return to glaciation. Not sure how humans survived the last one.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Climate matters

#343757

Postby XFool » September 29th, 2020, 5:47 pm

Sorcery wrote:I appreciate the human desire for stability. It's not what we have though and for the foreseeable future we can't correct earths orbit or stop tectonic plate movement. Given we are currently in an inter glacial and still in an icehouse phase the likelihood of us entering another glacial period must be high with devastating consequences for life including humans. The first graph in here gives some perspective https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey ... uses-them/

1950's CO2 levels and temperature are abnormally low compared to the last 67 million years. The longest stable period on Eschenbach's graph the turquoise Coolhouse line in here https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/w ... C692&ssl=1 lasted for 20 million years with temperatures 8 degrees C warmer than 1950.
A bit more CO2 might prevent a return to glaciation. Not sure how humans survived the last one.

I suspect the problem here is the timescales involved. The timescale of human induced climate change is very different from the geologically long timescales involved in tectonic plate movements or even those of changes in Earth's orbit.

BTW. Your geology link confirms we are already living in an "ice age", presently during a "warm interglacial". So humans evolved and spread around the planet during the current ice age.

gryffron
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3606
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:00 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 1586 times

Re: Climate matters

#343762

Postby gryffron » September 29th, 2020, 6:01 pm

Sorcery wrote:A bit more CO2 might prevent a return to glaciation. Not sure how humans survived the last one.

I think the point is that some humans survived the last one.

Just like some humans would doubtless survive if the planet was (on average) twenty degrees hotter, or twenty degrees cooler.

The overwhelming majority however, would be in a great deal of trouble, with even a small change in the status quo.

For example, SO FAR, climate change has brought drought to Australia, and much more reliable rainfall to the central African uplands. On average, weatherwise, that's about a break even. But Australia has political stability, low birthrate, and industrialised farming. Central Africa has political instability, sky high birthrate and low-tech subsistence farming. Plus of course, global media has far more access to Australia so tends to focus on what it can.

Gryff

Sorcery
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1229
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:38 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 366 times

Re: Climate matters

#343769

Postby Sorcery » September 29th, 2020, 6:58 pm

XFool wrote:
Sorcery wrote:I appreciate the human desire for stability. It's not what we have though and for the foreseeable future we can't correct earths orbit or stop tectonic plate movement. Given we are currently in an inter glacial and still in an icehouse phase the likelihood of us entering another glacial period must be high with devastating consequences for life including humans. The first graph in here gives some perspective https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey ... uses-them/

1950's CO2 levels and temperature are abnormally low compared to the last 67 million years. The longest stable period on Eschenbach's graph the turquoise Coolhouse line in here https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/w ... C692&ssl=1 lasted for 20 million years with temperatures 8 degrees C warmer than 1950.
A bit more CO2 might prevent a return to glaciation. Not sure how humans survived the last one.

I suspect the problem here is the timescales involved. The timescale of human induced climate change is very different from the geologically long timescales involved in tectonic plate movements or even those of changes in Earth's orbit.

BTW. Your geology link confirms we are already living in an "ice age", presently during a "warm interglacial". So humans evolved and spread around the planet during the current ice age.


The last ice age didn't really end in temperature terms until about 11500 years ago (after the Younger Dryas event), so very recently. There are only 3 estimates of population then, 2m 4m and 1-10m people, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates ... population. All human population expansion has really been since then i.e. during the current interglacial.
According to Clark et al., growth of ice sheets commenced 33,000 years ago and maximum coverage was between 26,500 years and 19–20,000 years ago, when deglaciation commenced in the Northern Hemisphere, causing an abrupt rise in sea level. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

A safety first approach might be to continue to try and reduce CO2 creation but be prepared to turn on the CO2 taps as soon as we see increased glaciation imho. I doubt that civilisation would survive another glaciation though some humans probably would in the current tropics and sub tropics.

marronier
Lemon Slice
Posts: 280
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:31 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 88 times

Re: Climate matters

#344214

Postby marronier » October 1st, 2020, 2:34 pm

Whilst I believe in Global Warming , I don't accept the causes that are so popular. Rather that it is a natural process that has been occurring for the last 4300 years when the Angle of Obliquity reached its maximum and has been reducing since to the result that the Tropical Zone is now less than 47 degrees of latitude from 48 degrees or more than 2 % or 4 million square km smaller . The blow lamp theory suggests that as the parameters of play are reduced then the temperature within those parameters increase at a disproportionally greater rate than the rate at which the parameters reduce , with both rates increasing annually.

Because of the oblate shape of the planet , the polar circles are shrinking at a slightly greater rate than the tropical zone. This leaves the Temperate Zones to increase in area and in average temperatures , also annually.

This has an effect on Climate Evolution ( not change ) where we see hot get hotter, wet get wetter , dry get dryer etc. and other extremes of weather e.g. average rainfall occurring over a smaller area in a shorter time scale.

Sorcery
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1229
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:38 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 366 times

Re: Climate matters

#344309

Postby Sorcery » October 1st, 2020, 9:23 pm

marronier wrote:Whilst I believe in Global Warming , I don't accept the causes that are so popular. Rather that it is a natural process that has been occurring for the last 4300 years when the Angle of Obliquity reached its maximum and has been reducing since to the result that the Tropical Zone is now less than 47 degrees of latitude from 48 degrees or more than 2 % or 4 million square km smaller . The blow lamp theory suggests that as the parameters of play are reduced then the temperature within those parameters increase at a disproportionally greater rate than the rate at which the parameters reduce , with both rates increasing annually.

Because of the oblate shape of the planet , the polar circles are shrinking at a slightly greater rate than the tropical zone. This leaves the Temperate Zones to increase in area and in average temperatures , also annually.

This has an effect on Climate Evolution ( not change ) where we see hot get hotter, wet get wetter , dry get dryer etc. and other extremes of weather e.g. average rainfall occurring over a smaller area in a shorter time scale.


I might dimly understand what you are saying. The earth's spin axis is tilted from the ecliptic (earth's orbit at least), this is Angle of Obliquity? Is this related to the Northern hemisphere having the most land mass and in earth's orbit around the sun, that while the Northern hemisphere receives most light in summer, earth is the furthest from the sun. The answer might be in here : https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/m ... esh-angle/
Should I continue to look there to understand what you mean? I think you might be putting it differently at least.
Good one, Cheers,

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Climate matters

#347637

Postby dspp » October 14th, 2020, 1:32 pm

"The temperatures [of the deep oceans] are rising quicker than previously thought, as recorded at stations at four different depths in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Uruguay. Between 2009 and 2019, the water there at points between 1,360m (4,462ft) and 4,757m deep warmed by 0.02-0.04C. The change may seem minuscule, but it is significant."

"“If you think about how large the deep ocean is, it’s an enormous amount of heat,” said Christopher Meinen, an oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and lead author of the study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters."


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ming-study

- dspp

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Climate matters

#347706

Postby XFool » October 14th, 2020, 6:27 pm

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:I wonder what the real margin of error is on that temperature reading?

"Based on the distribution of spectral energies at the deepest sites and a Monte Carlo‐style analysis, sampling at least once per year is necessary to capture the significant warming trends over this decade to within 50% error bars at a 95% confidence limit."

"Table 1. Locations of the PIES Moorings, Along With Basic Statistics of the Observed Temperatures (Maximum, Minimum, Record‐Length Mean, Temporal Standard Deviation, and Integral Time Scale) and the Trend (Linear Slope Fit) of Each Record Along With the 95% Confidence Limit Accuracy for the Trend"

"At greater depths (3,535 to 4,757 m), the observed warming trend is smaller, roughly +0.02°C per decade; the trend is statistically different from zero at the two deeper sites at 4,540 and 4,757 m, where the 95% confidence limits on the trends are about ±0.01°C per decade."

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GL089093

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Climate matters

#347771

Postby dspp » October 14th, 2020, 9:18 pm

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:
XFool wrote:
ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:I wonder what the real margin of error is on that temperature reading?

"Based on the distribution of spectral energies at the deepest sites and a Monte Carlo‐style analysis, sampling at least once per year is necessary to capture the significant warming trends over this decade to within 50% error bars at a 95% confidence limit."

"Table 1. Locations of the PIES Moorings, Along With Basic Statistics of the Observed Temperatures (Maximum, Minimum, Record‐Length Mean, Temporal Standard Deviation, and Integral Time Scale) and the Trend (Linear Slope Fit) of Each Record Along With the 95% Confidence Limit Accuracy for the Trend"

"At greater depths (3,535 to 4,757 m), the observed warming trend is smaller, roughly +0.02°C per decade; the trend is statistically different from zero at the two deeper sites at 4,540 and 4,757 m, where the 95% confidence limits on the trends are about ±0.01°C per decade."

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GL089093

I mean the actual error when physically taking the readings. I find it almost impossible to believe that over decades or years, it is possible to replicate readings to such accuracy. I would say the reported readings are well within the realm of statistical noise. I suppose those who want to believe them will anyway.

RVF.


Read XFool's quoted item again slowly. Go and read the original paper carefully. We any of us can 'believe; or 'disbelieve' what we like, but we must acknowledge that this is careful rigorous scientific work that is very aware of the implications of the research.
regards, dspp

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Climate matters

#347941

Postby XFool » October 15th, 2020, 11:44 am

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:Especially in something where the person's next chunk of research money is contingent on the findings.

Could you expand on and explain the "Especially... where" in this instance. To my mind this could be said of any and all scientific research or investigation.

TIA

Sorcery
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1229
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:38 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 366 times

Re: Climate matters

#348386

Postby Sorcery » October 16th, 2020, 9:32 pm

Sorcery wrote:
marronier wrote:Whilst I believe in Global Warming , I don't accept the causes that are so popular. Rather that it is a natural process that has been occurring for the last 4300 years when the Angle of Obliquity reached its maximum and has been reducing since to the result that the Tropical Zone is now less than 47 degrees of latitude from 48 degrees or more than 2 % or 4 million square km smaller . The blow lamp theory suggests that as the parameters of play are reduced then the temperature within those parameters increase at a disproportionally greater rate than the rate at which the parameters reduce , with both rates increasing annually.

Because of the oblate shape of the planet , the polar circles are shrinking at a slightly greater rate than the tropical zone. This leaves the Temperate Zones to increase in area and in average temperatures , also annually.

This has an effect on Climate Evolution ( not change ) where we see hot get hotter, wet get wetter , dry get dryer etc. and other extremes of weather e.g. average rainfall occurring over a smaller area in a shorter time scale.


I might dimly understand what you are saying. The earth's spin axis is tilted from the ecliptic (earth's orbit at least), this is Angle of Obliquity? Is this related to the Northern hemisphere having the most land mass and in earth's orbit around the sun, that while the Northern hemisphere receives most light in summer, earth is the furthest from the sun. The answer might be in here : https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/m ... esh-angle/
Should I continue to look there to understand what you mean? I think you might be putting it differently at least.
Good one, Cheers,


Further reading suggests that marronier is talking about one Milankovich cycle while I was talking about another. Both are considered important in glaciation periods. The trick would be to combine the place now in the phases of both cycles and to predict when the next glaciation cycle begins. My reading has not gone that far. Can anyone else help?

Sorry to reply to my own post but there you go. The Daily Mail (it's free to read) and other publications are reporting new suggestions that Neanderthals and Homo Erectus disappeared during the last 110 thousand years of the current ice age) due to failure to adapt to cold. That's 2 out of 3 Homo species gone and we (Homo Sapiens) didn't do it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... hange.html
Cold is really hard to live with.

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Climate matters

#352402

Postby dspp » November 1st, 2020, 9:59 am

"Scientists have found evidence that frozen methane deposits in the Arctic Ocean – known as the “sleeping giants of the carbon cycle” – have started to be released over a large area of the continental slope off the East Siberian coast, the Guardian can reveal.

High levels of the potent greenhouse gas have been detected down to a depth of 350 metres in the Laptev Sea near Russia, prompting concern among researchers that a new climate feedback loop may have been triggered that could accelerate the pace of global heating.

The slope sediments in the Arctic contain a huge quantity of frozen methane and other gases – known as hydrates. Methane has a warming effect 80 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years. The United States Geological Survey has previously listed Arctic hydrate destabilisation as one of four most serious scenarios for abrupt climate change."


https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... tists-find

- dspp

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Climate matters

#354776

Postby dspp » November 9th, 2020, 1:29 pm

Courtesy JohnKempReuters

Climate change had mixed showing in [USA] 2020 elections

Climate change got more attention this election cycle than ever, but the (political) science is mixed on whether it helped or hurt candidates who ran on it. Driving the news: Joe Biden campaigned on the topic more than any other presidential nominee, which climate activists say is a victory. But his wins in battleground states may have come in spite of it, not because of it, political observers say. What they’re saying: “The more climate change was on the agenda, the more it drove up votes in blue states, but it worked against Democrats in purple states, in battleground states,”


https://www.axios.com/climate-change-20 ... b2c94.html

etc

- dspp

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Climate matters

#369098

Postby dspp » December 23rd, 2020, 12:49 pm

Organic meat production just as bad for climate, study finds
Analysis also found the lowest impact meat was still far more damaging than the worst plant foods
The cost of the climate damage caused by organic meat production is just as high as that of conventionally farmed meat, according to research. The analysis estimated the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from different foods and calculated how much their prices would need to rise to cover the harm they cause by fuelling the climate emergency. For beef and lamb, organic and conventional production resulted in similar climate costs, the study found. Organic chicken was slightly worse for the climate and organic pork slightly better than their conventional counterparts.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... tudy-finds

- dspp

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Climate matters

#373012

Postby dspp » January 4th, 2021, 1:33 pm

Earth remained habitable for billions of years 'because of good luck'
"Professor Toby Tyrrell, a specialist in Earth system science, said the results of the study, published in the Nature journal Communications Earth and Environment, suggested chance is a major factor in determining whether planets, such as Earth, can continue to nurture life over billions of years. He said: "A continuously stable and habitable climate on Earth is quite puzzling. "Our neighbours, Mars and Venus, do not have habitable temperatures, even though Mars once did. "Earth not only has a habitable temperature today, but has kept this at all times across three to four billion years - an extraordinary span of geological time.""
https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2021/0 ... good-luck/

- dspp


Return to “The Natural World”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests